and having to join a union? How about making it automatic that once they have graduated from school as a professional engineer, they can work at it. They are denied even the right to earn a living at their own profession and no one says a word about that. Lawyers never say a word about a young lawyer who has graduated at the top of his class and because his father happened to be a man that was not the proper kind of citizen by some measurements, he is not even permitted to practive law in the State of Pennsylvania unless the bar association approves him, and once he does pass, he cannot practice law anywhere except the jurisdiction of the county that he lives in.

Mr. AYRES. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DENT. Yes.

Mr. AYRES. Could that not have been changed when you were leader in the senate?

Mr. DENT. You cannot change it because nothing that the legislature does affects the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania because they have absolute jurisdiction over the activities of lawyers and the rules and regulations of lawyers, so when you are starting to talk about rights and talk about the right of a labor man to get up and talk, let's not forget about the right of the college graduate or university graduate to practice his profession.

Mr. GRIFFIN. You mean the bar association does advance political candidates in Pennsylvania? Does the bar association do that? Does it contribute to one party or another?

Mr. DENT. You are in a better position to receive contributions from lawyers than I am. They do not vote for me.

Mr. GRIFFIN. I think civil rights would be involved if they do and we ought to look into it.

Mr. DENT. I am talking about when they are not even lawyers according to the bar association. I do not know what else they have to do except graduate from school. When you are getting into this labor relations field, let's cover the whole field. Let's not just pick out the Teamsters, or the bricklayers, or anybody else. Let's cover the field of human relations.

If you amend this bill to make it possible for a man to work in any area that he is trained in, you might get a lot more support from certain people, but your bill would not have a chance on the floor. You make it mandatory that a man who graduates from a university as a lawyer has a right to practice law and you would never get it out of the committee.

Mr. KEARNS. I think you are right.

Mr. DENT. That is right.

You know, Mr. Ayres, I might say to you that on every problem I have found that there are two sides and that is why I have always tried to look at it on a reasonable basis. Maybe that boy working at a gas station is working at the lowest wage in that community. How can he organize? Have you ever thought of that?

If he could have, would he not have organized? He would not? He just likes it the way he is?

Mr. AYRES. Yes.

Mr. DENT. Then all the millions of men that have entered into unions in this country have been coerced into their membership? Mr. AYRES. Oh, no.

Mr. DENT. Why did they join?

Mr. AYRES. They have voted and a majority of those voting decided they wanted the union to represent them.

Mr. DENT. Do you think that is the way the Teamsters have built up?

Mr. AYRES. In the cases of gas station attendants, they have voted and said they did not want even to join a union, in one case the Machinists and in the other case the Clerks. The Teamsters came along and did not ask them if they wanted to join.

Mr. DENT. Did you ever work in the coalfields before they had unions? And you think some of those members voted not to join the coal unions?

Mr. AYRES. The majority of them voted and I am certainly in accord with the way the provisions are set up now. Thirty percent of the employees sign up for an election. Over 50 percent vote to have the union represent them. I am all for that, John.

Mr. DENT. I am only going to say one thing, that the pendulum was way off to one side and now the pendulum is somewhere near that center in the influence that a union can use to get members and the influence that a manager or an employer can use to keep them out of the unions.

Mr. AYRES. Would you like to take a public opinion poll on that? Mr. DENT. It depends where you preach, where you preach they would vote against it and where I preach they would vote for it. Mr. PERKINS. Let's proceed.

Mr. KEARNS. I would like to remind the gentleman from Pennsylvania how goodhearted I am to give him all my time like that. Mr. DENT. That has happened to me, I found out, many times. I had 40 minutes yesterday, of which I used 7.

Mr. KEARNS. I am always glad to give you this time.

Mr. DENT. Thank you. You have always been fair. That is why I could not understand your bill.

Mr. PERKINS. Go ahead, Mr. Kearns.

Mr. KEARNS. The reason I brought up this freedom of profession while you were here, Mr. Reilly, is, I wanted to ask: Do you feel, personally, with your long experience, that we could improve upon the status of the supervisory legislation?

Mr. REILLY. I don't really because I think that the language that is in the bill was worked out by the Board itself over a period of years, and because the Board for many years distinguished between supervisors and between people that were in the rank-and-file bargaining unit.

It is true that at one stage of its history it allowed the supervisors themselves to be organized and to appeal to the Board, but they always did draw a line, and so the language that is in the present act was lifted almost verbatim from those Board decisions. Hence it has a history even longer than the Taft-Hartley Act. It goes way back.

Mr. DENT. Mr. Reilly, of your own knowledge do you know of an abuse of the supervisor provisions?

Mr. REILLY. No, I don't, sir. It is true that when you get down to the very bottom of the hierarchy-that is, some working foreman— there will be some controversy as to where the line should be drawn. agree with that.

Mr. DENT. Do you know that there has been a terrific increase in the number of supervisors in every textile plant in the country?

Mr. REILLY. You cannot exempt them just by calling a man a supervisor.

Mr. DENT. If you read the definition, he is pretty close to being a supervisor if he is called one.

Mr. REILLY. Take a textile case, for example. Take those working foremen on those machines. The Labor Board decided that they really were not.

Mr. DENT. I think there is some refinement required, although not too drastic, but I do believe that there is. On one side we have the unscrupulous labor leader, but I do not think you would sit there and tell me that there is no such thing as an unscrupulous employer.

Mr. REILLY. No; but I don't think you can take men out of the union just by calling them supervisors, because the Labor Board will scrutinize their duties in any case.

Mr. DENT. Thank you.

Mr. PERKINS. We have a quorum call on the floor and the gentleman to my left does not have any further questions; and if Mr. Pucinski can get through within the next few minutes, we will excuse the witness.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Reilly, I too, would like to congratulate you on your very forthright statement here. Even though I may not agree with many of the statements or your views, I do think you have done this committee a great service by expressing the views of the chamber of commerce.

Mr. REILLY. Thank you very much.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You had told the chairman of this committee, and I believe the ranking member of the minority, Mr. Kearns, that if this committee does not adopt the Barden bill or the Kearns bill, it would be your organization's position that you want no legislation at all?

Mr. REILLY. I didn't say precisely either of these bills. I assume that the committee is going to do quite a bit of revision, whatever it reports out, and that it won't just take as a rubberstamp anything that is sent over by the Senate. This committee has never done that, so that it would not be accurate to say that if neither the Barden or the Kearns bill is reported we would be opposed to anything. That isn't so.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You have indicated, though, that if in its wisdom this committee adopts the major portions of the Kennedy bill, you would be opposed to it.

Mr. REILLY. We would be opposed to it if it retained title VI and those sections relating to employee reporting were not amended.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Assuming this committee adopts the Kennedy bill more or less in its present form, with the provisions that you find objectionable, are you then-and is the chamber of commerce-prepared to assume the full responsibility and go to the American people and tell them that it was your opposition that is preventing any labormanagement reform legislation from being passed in this session? Are you willing to take that responsibility, sir?

Mr. REILLY. I do not think we would be so arrogant as to say that we were responsible, but we certainly would do everything we could to prevent that legislative outcome.

Mr. PUCINSKI. You are willing to take the responsibility that there is no labor-management reform in this session

Mr. REILLY. Now you are saying it a little bit differently.

I was addressing myself to your basic premise: That the committee reported out the Kennedy bill virtually unchanged.

Yes, the chamber would be prepared to oppose that to the last ditch.

Mr. PUCINSKI. If we decided that the Kennedy bill in its present form is the best bill that we can get through the Congress, and if we fail because of your opposition-and it was very effective in the last session-then we are safe to go and tell our people that it was the National Chamber of Commerce that is responsible for no labormanagement reform legislation in this session?

Mr. REILLY. I would say that would be owing more to the uncompromising attitude of the sponsors of the bill, because we have suggested an avenue of adequate reform legislation.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Actually, Mr. Reilly, I am under the impression that the people of this country want more than anything else to get that element out of the labor movement that has violated the trust of the working people. That is fundamentally what they want.

Mr. REILLY. And the whole point of our position is that the Kennedy bill would not do that.

Mr. PUCINSKI. In the provisions setting up the criteria for a man holding office in a union, the Kennedy bill spells out the specific violations, the crimes and convictions for specific crimes, that bar this man from holding office in a union.

The Barden bill and the administration bill merely say that any man who has lost his voting rights by virtue of some conviction cannot hold office in a union.

You are familiar with the fact that there are several States, including Michigan-which is one of the most highly industrialized States in the country and where you have a tremendous amount of union. activity that do not deny a man his voting rights regardless of what the crime is.

How would either the Barden bill or the Kearns bill reach at those individuals?

The Kennedy bill does set up specific criteria.

Mr. REILLY. I think that the Kennedy bill on that rather limited issue of persons convicted with crime is sound enough, but, remember, it has only been more spectacular incidents that have been performed by people of known criminal records. So far as I know, some of the worst offenders, like Messrs. Beck and Brewster and Hoffa, have not had criminal records when in office, so they would still have been eligible for union office.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I take it this witness is not coming back.

Mr. PERKINS. That is correct.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Then I have two very quick questions to ask and then I think we can wrap it up.

Mr. Reilly, is it possible or probable that your objection to the Kennedy bill, or a good portion of your objection to this Kennedy bill, is because it sets up a code of ethics for the employers as well as for the employees? In your statement on page 25, you make a

38488-59-pt. 1——22

great issue of the fact that this provision of the Kennedy bill would amount to a Government recommendation that labor unions and employers adopt such codes.

You envision a cumbersome tripartite advisory committee to promote the adoption of such codes:

Many associations take no part in collective-bargaining activities.

Is it not a fact that many of the federations in the labor movement take no part in collective-bargaining activities?

I have in mind the Chicago Federation of Labor. Yet they are covered by this legislation. Why are you so anxious then to exclude the associations, and they were the guys that were really brought out in the McClellan hearings, these associations that were acting as the middlemen and that were spending vast sums of money to corrupt these union officials. Yet you are very anxious to exclude them completely from this legislation.

Is that where a good deal of the opposition stems to this KennedyErvin bill?

Mr. REILLY. You mean title IV. Title IV does not create any codes. It simply speaks of getting an industry-labor group together to draw up some, and I am suggesting that the proper place for legislation is right here in Congress, as to the policy of what the code should be. It is public policy.

Mr. PUCINSKI. The Kennedy bill does cover those associations.

Mr. REILLY. To get to your second premise, trade associations were not being shown up as great violators by the McClellan committee. Mr. PUCINSKI. How about the Chicago Restaurant Association that spent $120,000 and gave money to Teitlebaum, the attorney?

You remember Mr. Teitlebaum and his fifth amendment, when he refused to tell how he spent $80,000 that was given him by the Chicago Restaurant Association?

You say they were brought out in the McClellan committee?

Mr. REILLY. I had the impression you were speaking about the national trade associations which would come under title IV.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I am speaking about all the associations. How did you happen to read Mr. Schmidt's testimony?

Mr. REILLY. I saw a summary of the transcript of it over at the chamber. I must confess I haven't actually seen the full transcript of it. All I have seen has been a summary of it.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Who sent you that summary?

Mr. REILLY. I was working down there with the staff preparing the

statement.

Mr. PUCINSKI. I was just wondering, because I haven't had a chance to see all that.

Mr. REILLY. If you are implying that Mr. Schmidt sent it to me, no; he didn't.

Mr. PUCINSKI. Thank you very much.

Mr. PERKINS. We are glad to have had you with us this morning, Mr. Reilly, and thank you for giving us the benefit of your views. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Thereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, March 18, 1959.)